Given some of the absolute hateful and unscientific rubbish that the government have previously come out with in support of “anti-obesity” policies that very quickly become “anti-fat people” policies, to fight a largely non-existent “obesity epidemic”, using methods that vary between “utterly ineffective” and “incredibly dangerous”, this is one “give it to the private sector to kill” I’m 100% in favour of.

I’m not at all surprised by this, though it is patently idiotic.

In this environment I how this story of the evil EU getting involved in food labelling – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10240263.stm – will play out? Imagine having to provide scientific evidence to support scientific claims? Hell in a handcart, you couldn’t make it up, etc, etc.

I like this bit from the Guardian’s news report:

Speaking to reporters after his speech to the Faculty of Public Health conference in central London, Lansley said Change4Life would also be expanded, to cover alcohol misuse which costs the NHS £17bn a year – the same as obesity, which now affects one in four Britons.

He said that in conversations with the food industry before the election, they had been anxious about their products being “stigmatised as junk food”. He said he did not want to “close companies out” by trading allegations of “good food and bad food”.

Hmmm…that tube of Pringles is so obviously a health food snack that I can trust the food industry to say so. And Lansley clearly can’t tell the difference between a banana and gallon of Sunny Delight.

“It’s perfectly possible to eat a bag of crisps, to eat a Mars bar, to drink a carbonated soft drink, but do it in moderation, understanding your overall diet and lifestyle. Then you can begin to take responsibility for it.”

But since government isn’t going to bother helping people understand their ‘overall diet and lifestyle’, they’re going to let the food industry promote ‘responsible eating’ of that tube of Pringles (which is the easiest and most efficient way to eat them, as the manufacturers know). Given the choice of a government campaign for ‘five a day’ and Lansley’s patronising piffle, I’d take the former.

Agree with Cim. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a myth, so who cares?

Approximately 3,975th on my list of “things the coalition have done that I’m remotely worried about”…

But still:

(1)
“The Tory health secretary has today announced that the Change4Life campaign – which offers friendly advice and encouragement to those of us who really could shed a few pounds – is to be scrapped….

However, there might just be an appropriate role for moderate admonition in favour of weight loss. As luck would have it, Lansley seems entirely confident that junk food and snack manufacturers will happily take up the challenge.”

Your main point is all to cock here. What Lansley actually said was that he wanted industry to take over funding the Change4Life campaign. Apparently Pepsi, Tesco and Nestle, amongst others, already “support” it. There’s actually a valid point you could have made here, which is that funding the campaign *could* be part of a case for escaping regulation. This may or may not be your cup of tea, but I don’t think we need be cynical about the junk food industry jumping at the chance of funding Change4Life, even as is. They will – they know what the alternative is.

(2)
This is partly because they may have read some of the same evidence the right wing press has, suggesting that behavioural ad campaigns don’t work, particularly if they’re fear-based (remember that charming poster of a happy little girl holding a cupcake, with the words “Is a premature DEATH really that tempting?” Nice. And highly effective I’m sure, if the aim was raising the national average of nightmares per capita among the U16s.) Now, I don’t know which way the public health campaign evidence breaks, on balance, because I don’t know enough about it. But some sort of attempt on your part to show that (a) Change4Life does work and (b) that it will definitely stop working if it isn’t funded by the government would have been good.

(3)
Obviously I think he’s right on the personal responsibility point.

(4)
Just as a matter of interest, governments haven’t always been right about this stuff anyway, which is partly why (3) is important. Not because they’re evil or misguided, but because they’re working with incomplete information like the rest of us. Right now there is a very, very gradual retreat occurring in the matter of carbohydrates, because (a) the “affluent illnesses” of the west and factors causing them are undergoing constant re-evaluation, as you’d expect, and (b) the suggestion is permeating that many of the mid-twentieth century studies on which the central role in diet of carbohydrates is based were not particularly applicable to lifelong dietary habits (ie, they lasted for a week, participants were fed only red meat and no vegetables, nobody ate much of anything anyway in the 1950s etc). Who are we going to blame for that little fifty year mistake, if that’s what it turns out to be? The corporate spaghetti lobby?

(5)
“Coming next from Lansley: Imperial Tobacco to direct anti-smoking strategy. Trust me, it’s only a matter of time.”

Funny you should say that; that’s what they do in America with some success so far as I understand it.

Lansley is a fatuous git who flipped his house. Unfortunately, he’s also not completely wrong on the principle here. And even if he were, what happens to the Change4Life campaign under industry funding remains to be seen. Is it a registered charity with its own mem & arts? Which department if any has the authority to fold it? Could you be bothered to look any of this up?

Why should the Nanny State even try to stop us eating all the pies – and all the large doners with everything, mate, and all the double whoppers with extra additive-laden vaguely cheese-ish crap, come to that – if that is what we want to do?

Excellent question, Dave.

What was the answer?

[1 + 4) The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a myth - but what about this, oh it's all so confusing?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1289376/British-children-getting-fatter-twice-rate-Americans.html

By the way, had anybody else even heard of Change4Life until today? I hadn’t, but apparently it has great brand recognition among mothers. And other demographics who regularly frequent doctors’ waiting rooms, presumably, where they have those government messaging TVs now. The first time I saw one of those it was playing a homeopathy puff-piece on a loop.

is it abundantly clear that the Change4Life campaign has ever achieved anything?

Interesting. Just found this article written by the director of the Children’s Food Campaign from when Change4Life started:

“… Change4Life could be fatally flawed from the start.

The government has been criticised for augmenting the campaign with what are euphemistically called “corporate partnerships” with companies like Nestle, PepsiCo and Mars.

It justifies this by claiming it wants a national movement with everyone working together to fight obesity. But is the involvement of the leading manufacturers of fatty, sugary and snack products really going to help reduce obesity? Just how enthusiastically are Coca-Cola and Pepsi going to try to help children swap away from sugary drinks?”

He goes on to say that there is “very little independent evidence that social marketing is more effective than other methods of improving our health” and asks how the success of the campaign will be evaluated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2008/dec/31/change4life-campaign-obesity

Why should the nanny state stop us smoking, despite the revenues generated by excise duty and vat?…answer, because of the implied cost generated down the line for the NHS. Of course we could do away with that and get everyone to go private….

“1 + 4) The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a myth – but what about this, oh it’s all so confusing?”

It is not confusing at all A&E nurse, there simply is no ‘epidemic’, even leaving aside the point that ‘obesity’ is a social and not a medical category. Lifetime health outcomes for UK citizens are improving steadily including, to the great concern of policy makers, life expectancy. Let the Daily Mail wail about the ‘tidal wave’ of infant fat, we needn’t get het up.

[1 + 4) The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a myth - but what about this, oh it's all so confusing?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1289376/British-children-getting-fatter-twice-rate-Americans.html

The Mail sez…

They are getting fat almost twice as quickly as American youngsters as they eat double the amount of sugary and savoury treats.

Except that the amount of sugary/savoury “treats” they consume needn’t align with their growth or entire caloric intake. For example, US children guzzle Lake Michigan’s worth of soda(pdf), which, as far as I can see, wasn’t a consideration.

“Why should the nanny state stop us smoking, despite the revenues generated by excise duty and vat?…answer, because of the implied cost generated down the line for the NHS. ”

Even if that were a legitimate concern (and I don’t agree that it is), the argument makes no sense. Tax revenues on tobacco more than pay for the medical treatment of smoking related disease and smokers die sooner costing less in (hugely expensive) geriatric care of one kind an another.

7: That article lives up to the usual Daily Mail science reporting standards.
– it doesn’t say who’s predicting that rise (though it does say that the DoH disagrees with the prediction)
– it doesn’t say how it’s defining children as being overweight (given how much children’s shapes change during puberty, I’m not convinced you could ever get a reliable measure)
– it assumes that extra weight is by definition harmful, but the evidence for that is incredibly shaky. Have a look at Lenz, Richter and Muhlhauser, or the similar research from Canada or the US, that points out that mortality for people with a BMI in the 30-35 range is not statistically different to mortality for people in the government-mandated 18-25 range, and points out that the evidence that people with a higher weight are more prone to certain conditions is not conclusive, and what evidence there is of a correlation is not evidence of causation.

Handing over health education to the manufacturers is obviously potty. But another problem is that the whole healthy eating debate is badly framed. The manufacturers actually have a vested interest in the micro-information that dominates the media. Fat is good/bad, healthy bacteria, etc. They make millions selling us, for example, low fat and probiotic foods, which have minimal or negative health benefits (low fat foods tend to be packed with sugar so can increase your calorie intake).

Generally, healthy foods are unprocessed foods, which the manufacturers will, of course, always have a bias against.

What do you expect from tory whores. They take money in exchange for doing what their corporate masters demand.

[15] so there’s no problem then?

NICE doesn’t seem to agree with you – here is there current guidance (including definitions, on p36)
http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11000/30365/30365.pdf

It starts, “This is the first national guidance on the prevention, identification, assessment and management of overweight and obesity in adults and children in England & Wales. The guidance aims to stem the RISING PREVALENCE of obesity and diseases associated with it.

You might not accept the findings of the Datamonitor survey reported in the Fail (and I can understand your skepticism) but NICE is concerned as well – why would this be the case if rising obesity was purely a figment of the imagination?

I can accept that some might argue that the size of a person’s waist line is not a a matter for nanny (even amongst children who have little control over the food choices put before them) but I think it’s hard to deny that BMI has not risen dramatically over the last 50 years?

This is what Bush did. He handed over the regulation of various industries to the very industries themselves. So you got the “ clear skies “ initiative which basically allowed corporations to pollute as much as possible. Or the “Healthy forest” initiative that allowed corporations to cut down as much forest as they liked.

The Lib Dems must be so proud of this nonsense.

18: but I think it’s hard to deny that BMI has not risen dramatically over the last 50 years?

I’m not denying that BMI has increased over the last 50 years (though I’d dispute “dramatically”), I’m questioning whether this actually means anything at all in terms of public health.

Show me the evidence that:
– heavier weights are a risk factor – as opposed to a symptom – for particular health conditions (I accept there’s a correlation between the two, but that’s not enough)
– furthermore, that in so far as heavier weights are a risk factor, this more than outweighs the increased risk from conditions for which lighter weights are a risk factor
– BMI is a useful measurement anyway (outside its original domain of a statistical measure for adult populations)
– anything that’s been tried as a weight loss method is actually both safe and effective in the long-term (5 year follow-up or greater)

“In short, it blames a minority of pissheads for the bulk of Britain’s drink problems.”

And it is right to do so. 99% of people drink responsibly (horrible nu lab phrase but serves the purpose here) 99% of the time. When they don’t it is a law enforcement problem, not a health problem, or an “alchol problem”

I actually read some research the other day which proved what I’ve long suspected, that the lefts approach to public health – nagging people to be “healthier” – is not economically effective, the cost of all the nagging and interventions is greater than the saving made if you just let people eat/drink/smoke themselves into an early grave.

“Why should the Nanny State even try to stop us eating all the pies – and all the large doners with everything, mate, and all the double whoppers with extra additive-laden vaguely cheese-ish crap, come to that – if that is what we want to do?

Excellent question, Dave.

What was the answer?”

I know this one! Answer: it doesn’t.

There’s a difference between “stop” and “persuade not to”. A teeny one, perhaps, but still a difference. Your personal freedoms are in no way threatened by a few adverts.

“I actually read some research the other day which proved what I’ve long suspected, that the lefts approach to public health – nagging people to be “healthier” – is not economically effective, the cost of all the nagging and interventions is greater than the saving made if you just let people eat/drink/smoke themselves into an early grave.”

Well, that’s only true if you’re not counting human costs. And while I’d agree that people make their own choices, it has to be an informed choice. We all know that burgers, chocolate etc is bad for us, but some may not realise the extent of the risk, or the danger posed by less obvious examples.

On the other hand, I suspect being perceived as ‘nagging’ leads people to do the opposite of what you say simply out of pique.

@ 23 – McDonalds would no doubt justify their advertising by saying they just want to “raise awareness” of their products, or offer people “a choice” – funny how the language of the corporate marketeer sounds just a teeny weeny bit like nu labour social engineering. It’s not governments job to “persuade”

@ 24 “On the other hand, I suspect being perceived as ‘nagging’ leads people to do the opposite of what you say simply out of pique”.

Of course it does – I smoke more since the smoking ban for that very reason. There is actually no independent evidence that government campaigns of any kind have any measurable effect on behaviour, for the very simple reason that people do not react in a uniform or predictable way to “messages”. For example health warnings have been on cigarretes packets since the 1960s and despite al the hype, 25% of the adult population still smoke.

“Of course it does – I smoke more since the smoking ban for that very reason. ”

Pity the govt did not tell you to jump off a cliff then.

Should have said …..

pity the govt did not tell you NOT to jump off a cliff then.

Your personal freedoms are in no way threatened by a few adverts.

They are. I am compelled to pay for them…..

@ 27 I would have done the opposite and stayed put…………

“McDonalds would no doubt justify their advertising by saying they just want to “raise awareness” of their products, or offer people “a choice” – funny how the language of the corporate marketeer sounds just a teeny weeny bit like nu labour social engineering.”

Shock horror: people with different jobs use the same words as each other! Something should be done!

” It’s not governments job to “persuade””

I’d disagree there, for reasons set out in post 24. I’m not saying your position isn’t valid, though.

How about a less controversial one? Round my way, they sometimes have posters up warning people of the consequences of crime, to persuade people to stay straight. Assuming for the sake of argument (because we’re talking about the principle here) that this would have a certain amount of effect and represent value for money, would you think that it would be better to wait until the prospective crim shot someone and then arrest them?

“Of course it does – I smoke more since the smoking ban for that very reason. There is actually no independent evidence that government campaigns of any kind have any measurable effect on behaviour, for the very simple reason that people do not react in a uniform or predictable way to “messages”. For example health warnings have been on cigarretes packets since the 1960s and despite al the hype, 25% of the adult population still smoke.”

And apparently banning fag adverts actually helped tobacco companies (not that there’s anything wrong with that in this instance) because they no longer had to spend millions competing with one another.

I probably smoke slightly less since the ban, at least in winter (I’m a bit bloody minded about the conditions I’m prepared to put up with to smoke outside the rest of the time), but I’m not going to thank anyone for that.

Actually, here’s something we can probably agree on: what about those charming types who smoked but supported the ban because it would help them quit?

“Your personal freedoms are in no way threatened by a few adverts.

They are. I am compelled to pay for them…..”

Hmm. Yes, ok. “In no way” was incorrect in my response. But your personal freedom to eat pies is not affected by the government suggesting you shouldn’t, which was what you were implying.

your personal freedom to eat pies is not affected by the government suggesting you shouldn’t,